Here's the deal. A while ago User:Netoholic decided to make some of the fields non-optional. I reverted because I believed it made the template less flexible and less pleasing to look at. He reverted back because he had also changed some table settings and I had screwed them up. Not feeling particularly strong about the topic, and not wanting to start an edit war, I decided to leave it alone. However, what does the community feel about this? I support optional fields, because it allows people to get something down as a starting point, and fill in the information later. This is other infoboxes I have encountered work (Template:Infobox Software, Template:Infobox Network, Template:Infobox programming language, etc) and I believe it should function like those. Input your thoughts though.--Max Talk (add) • Contributions 00:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC) 04:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All but the most basic, universal, and obvious fields optional. Anything made non-optional should be discussed here first and agreed upon before the change is made. Turnstep 00:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a "next unaired episode" row in the infobox. It could be an optional entry. - Bevo 17:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that information would be just a tad too dynamic for a encylopedia infobox The DJ 01:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we change "Network" to something like "Broadcast on" or "Originally broadcast on"? Morwen - Talk 12:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to "Network/channel" for now, but it might not look right. violet/riga (t) 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rating looks very bad, I'm afraid. Not only is it horribly US-centric but it uses meta-templates too, which should be avoided where possible. violet/riga (t) 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. If you really feel you want to kill it, fine, do so. I give up, I'm done. Before anything's going away, then let's get a consensus (of more than 1 person) going first. Until then, I'll revert. Pacific Coast Highway|^{Leave a message ($.25)} 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I think the reason for removing it is greater than the reason for keeping it in, and your "majority of one" equally applies to yourself. We should abide by the Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates policy. Further, it doesn't matter that it's optional as the fact that a US rating is shown on programmes shown throughout the world is just simply wrong. violet/riga (t) 09:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, If it's a policy, I have no problem abiding by it. However, you "international" rationale seems a bit hypocritical. A show originating in the U.S. airing on FOX, could air on some other network in the U.K., and yet have no mention in the box, a la The Simpsons. Pacific Coast Highway|^{Leave a message ($.25)} 14:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're referring to the "network" bit now, which is different. violet/riga (t) 21:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have a US rating? It applies to the program, and I think it's relevant. However, I would suggest adding a Canadian rating and (at least for Canadian programming like This Hour Has 22 Minutes), or creating a different infobox for Canadian television. Fagstein 02:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise this infobox is used for television programs from places outside North America, right? Morwen - Talk 12:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the same thing should apply to other countries. How about, instead of "US rating", we give ratings in as many countries as give them? Fagstein 18:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that these ratings images in the template do not look right and should be removed. Multiple countries can be added, but the image should not be included. If there are no objections, I would like to remove them from where they have been included thusfar. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, at this point, I don't care as to what even happens at this point. I'm sure you all can work this out. Pacific Coast Highway|^{Leave a message ($.25)} 23:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the rating field options as just putting it in messed up over 1000 atricles that use this template. Documentation also updated. -- Jbattersby 16:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the recent addition to the "Running time" section that read (approx. per episode). In general, we should keep the values empty to allow for full flexibility for each article. In this particular case, I did a small random sampling and found that over half of the existing articles using this template already had some sort of "per episode" wording, which lead to a bad-looking infobox. Even if such a change should be made (and I don't think it should), it is up to the person making the change to not only get consensus, but to make sure that they are willing to make sure every affected article that uses the infobox is changed as well. Turnstep 00:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but only half-ly. I think something like "Running time (avg.)" would be a good idea since NO show has exactly the same time for all it's episodes but they usually follow an approximate time (The Simpsons 22m, Desperate Housewives 45m etc.) unless it was cancelled after one or something! - ^R_H^e_o^d_t 16:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what i was trying to acheive, I didnt like the way id done it and was considering reverting myself at the time, but i think we should consider adding it to the heading of the field, perhaps not approx per episode, but definately running time approx. nothing is ever going to have exact times and many articles ive seen write out approx and per episode approx when it should really be part of the template. Discordance 13:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the "narrated by" since not all shows have a narration. If the general consensus is for it can always be readded. Sfufan2005 00:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been put back and is an eyesore for unnarrated shows, so I've made it into an optional field. - Someguy0830 (Talk) 07:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Television Soap Opera

Since Tvtonightokc (Talk | contribs) added this new template, there should be some discussion. I don't see any need to have an entirely seperate template to deal with those specific shows. They'll just get switched to this template. All the extra fields on it can be put as optional features in this one or are unnecessary. - Someguy0830 (Talk) 04:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, template forking should be avoided. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 13:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any extra fields can be added as optional here these templetes should be deleted. Im quite confused about the first-run template's purpose and its usage instructions Discordance 00:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another fork appears to be Wikipedia:WikiProject_British_TV_shows/infobox. I agree that more than one aren't needed, and suggest that articles currently using either of these two templates are converted to using the infobox television, and the templates are put into the VfD process. Mike Peel 13:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One value that the soap opera infoboxes has is "alternate titles," which can be useful to see what a show is named in another country. I wanted to do that for Eight is Enough, to add Huit, ça suffit! (France) to the alternate titles box, but saw that the television infobox doesn't have that. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• website - Appears as the first of any optional external links included in the infobox; as noted in the documentation, it is the website that the originating network or production company maintains for the show.
• camera - Allows the infobox to note whether the show is shot with either one or multiple cameras. Besides the links embedded in the previous sentence, you can read about why this is interesting in articles such as this from Variety or by noting that several Creative Arts Emmys are organized around the single- vs. multi-camera distinction.

— 69.3.70.8 09:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Why is this page protected, and would anyone mind of I (or whatever person is abusing their administrator privelages) makes "creator" an optional field? - Diceman 13:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's protected because some users kept trying to add things that had already been decided to be unneccessary for the template. As for making creator optional, everything has a creator. Find the creator and add him/her. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some sockpuppets of the same user. creator probably should be optional. I've had this page unprotected as full protection was hardly justified in the first place semi-protect would have dealt with the sock-puppets, anyway after two weeks hopefully that user has got bored and forgotten by now. Discordance 13:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's unprotected, I went ahead and made creator optional. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. - Diceman 14:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding an optional "Theme Music" row ?

I think it is information that is intersting, and it's not something people seem to add to the articles. Perhaps having it in the infobox will remind people to add this information ? The DJ 01:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People will not notice unless they come here or someone adds the option to all the templates. I don't think including it is necessary. It's really something that the article should note separately. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peoplewill notice theme music or composer. People do intensely remember and enjoy the theme music for television shows. Accordingly, I added the category 'theme composer.'Dogru144 13:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking trough a lot of templates atm, and this is were I'm gonna make notes of information that other templates use that do not currently fit this box.

• Hosted by (for news, gameshows and reality shows)
• Starring does not fit gameshows and reality shows either. Contestents is better but too unimportant for an Infobox in my eyes.
• Animated by: for animated TV series
• Channel vs. Network (Network is truly a US concept)
• Spin-offs
• Audio format (mono, stereo, surround)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:47, April 30, 2006 (UTC).

You can just add them as optional fields is you want. Channel and network are included in one field. There's no need to break them apart. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of picture format... "The video format in which the show airs" perhaps that should be "in which the show was recorded" ?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:34, May 31, 2006 (UTC).

Probably. Sign your comments. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added Audio format, and replaced Content rating(s) with new instructions that hopefully will make everyone happy. I’ve also started the parameter change from “format” to “genre”. My temporary solution is to have them both optional, so whichever is used will display. Once all the instances that use “format” have been changed to “genre”, the optional parameters can be deleted, and the main “genre” parameter can be uncommented.
I’m not great with template syntax, so if I’ve broken anything, just fix it. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both the "format/genre" and "ratings" arguments have been discussed at length. Format is meant to prevent confusion. Ratings differ between countries so they aren't included, plus they can change through various episodes. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 02:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that’s ridiculous. How does using “format” avoid confusion? Format can mean a lot of things, but genre clearly means the type of show. Heck, it even outputs under the title “Genre”, so why shouldn’t the parameter have the same name as the output? I only see one mention of this on the page, and there are no listed objetions.
As for ratings, the main objections before were the use of images and meta-templates, which I mentioned in the instructions as to be avoided. I know ratings vary by region - so put in the ratings from each region. That’s what video game pages have. I see no reason why this pertinent information shouldn’t be included. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually just the title of the field that I was refering to, but you're right, that doesn't make sense now that I think about it. It's more of a matter of changing the variable. This is used on way too many pages to change it now, and making an if statement just to convert it is a waste. If you went through every instance of the template with AWB and simply changed the name of the variable, that would work, but there's really no need to. As for ratings, like I said, they can vary between episodes: case in point, List of The Venture Bros. episodes. That information won't be accurate unless you print every single one, which would just get overly verbose on some pages. Better for it to be added elsewhere, as that page I linked to does. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand with Someguy0830 on this one. Please use a tool to actually make all the replacements, or leave it as it is. Otherwise no one will do it. And ratings are episode specific. Troughout reruns a re-rating can occur, and the rating is country specific. It's better to place this information under the "international broacasting" information that most popular shows have, in that case. But people need to understand that unlike most other information, wikipedia should not be used as their primary source for a rating. Something like "Due to the many scenes with bad-mouthing among the characters the show usually carries a TV-14 L rating in the US." might be appropriate in the introduction of an article. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This tag has been added for TV shows which have an original broadcaster, yet are not shown by them first. (usage: first_run = <show>) Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 13:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then that wouldn't be its original broadcaster. It'd be a company that the show was produced in association with. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will explain with a show like Battlestar Galactica, its original network is Sci-Fi. It was co-funded with Skyone in Season 1. However it was shown on Sky One months before Sci-Fi so its first run is Sky One and its original channel is Sci-Fi as it was produced by them. PS: Please dont remove it without finishing discussion first as it is in use. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 19:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On how many pages? One? How many possible uses could this have? Anothing thing is that aquiring the rights to the show is an entirely separate matter from what you intend the use of this field to be. Also, the reverse of discussion is true. Just adding things will also get your changes reverted fairly quickly. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is it has a use, o.k? By the way they didnt just aquire rights they co-funded. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 20:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case they would be one of the original network's, now wouldn't they? Your argument just fell apart. It's an original network so your variable doesn't apply. Infoboxes such as this are not meant to cater to a single page. Either find a widespread use for it or don't bother adding it. Also, calling someone's revert for valid reasons vandalism when you've broken the 3RR rule by doing it is a pretty stupid thing to do. I don't really care so I'm not going to report it, but you need to remember the difference between vandalism and good faith. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no where for me to change the message so it uses a default, and if you give me time to do more research im sure more shows can be added and i never said they where the original network thats why i added first_run as Sky one showed it first yet are not the original network. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 20:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Sky One is one of the backers of the project and the first to show it, then it is the original network. Teen Titans, for example, was produced by both the WB and Cartoon Network, yet aired on Cartoon Network first. Your option will never apply, because no show, anywhere, will ever air on a network that didn't have some part in its creation. It doesnt apply to Battlestar Galactica and it won't apply anywhere else. How is this not clear?

I should also point out that Sky One is in another country, which have different trends and release patterns for their shows. If this were in the same county, it would make sense, but it doesn't apply when different networks adhere to different schedules. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem, it's just saying what network it aired on first. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • typa-typa)} 22:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do i, It has a use and thats all that matters. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 22:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I suppose I can't win this alone. Honestly, I don't see the point, since it's remotely used at best and is noted in the first paragraph of articles anyway. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ho ho, i'm not giving in on this one just yet. In my eyes this clutters the infobox with useless information. It's very show specific information, there is no reason this HAS to be in the infobox, you can just as well add it to the article in general. Before you know it, we have all kinds of production related "Trivia" in the Infobox. The thing needs to be clear, consistent and present a nice OVERVIEW of important show information. Specifically not ALL show information. I HIGHLY oppose of this entry - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And on the revert war: "(restore my version, first run is a tag for broadcasters who make a show and are the original broadcaster but it is shown elsewhere first (ie: bsg) [ps: i wasnt aware i had to ask permision to edit))" Templates are not articles, and discussing "non-trivial" things on talk pages is always appreciated by all editors. The fact that you got yourself in a revert war shows me that you are not a long time wikipedia contributor, so some slack is in order, but please be careful editing templates which usage range into the order of thousands of pages. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox film adds the useful tag "amg_id" which allows an automatic link to the allmovie.com site in addition to IMDb; see Spider-Man 2 for an example. I would suggest adding this tag to Television, since many shows will also have a page at that site; for example see Sex and the City or Stargate SG-1. This feature also allows Wikipedia to be slightly less reliant on a single Amazon.com-owned source for movie/TV references. --Notmicro 04:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's already got tv.com and imdb. That's enough. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bad idea. Again, Infoboxes are not supposed to contain all possible information about the show. Having three external links in the infobox is already a lot, maybe even too much. Adding additional links just for the sake of not having to rely on one company seems overkill. Put it in External links (and even then i'm against it. 2 profile sites are more then enough. there are hundreds out there we can't add them all. Wikipedia is NOT a link guide). - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. Three is bordering on too much, and we only include those specific links because they are the most recognizable ones. I never even heard of amg before this. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest we create some way of housing ALL links available to other sites. This is a comprehensive encyclopedia, right? Maybe not in the Infoboxes, maybe somewhere else, but we should porbbaly link to at least 3 more sites with tv show information. 06:03, 03 September 2006 (UTC-5)

Either we remove tv.com and tmdb or add tvguide.com and allmovie.com and anyone else who has a site that has some official information about all shows. One could argue that they are all equally relevant, so why should we choose to only drive traffic to some that are no better than the others, and certainly no more informative than Wikipedia itself?– Peuclid 15:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We dont need to add any extra links, imdb and tv.com already cover what most people link them for, adding an extra two would be over-linkage. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this entry for? —Centrx→talk • 20:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read talk page. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Background colouring of the title (For an example see:[1]) -- If there are no objections i may add this. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually considering it the background doesnt have to be mandatory and thus can either be there or not be there, i shall make the changes to show an example. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing instances where someone not only lists the cast in the starring section, but includes the character names as well, making it seem a bit crowded. Where can I find a policy about use of this section?x 02:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's not one really. Suffice it to say that such verbosity does not belong in an infobox. Cut it where you see it. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles i have seen just list the actors only and i believe this is the std so if you see them in an article remove charcter names. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The formats listed at present are only US digital standards. I'm going to add PAL, SECAM, and NTSC to the formats, because the vast majority of television programs released to date have used one of these specific television systems. 480i, for example, is not the same thing as NTSC, as it implies a digital format, whereas only the NTSC III standard is defined as such. And PAL (aka 576i), the most common television standard worldwide, isn't listed at all. Fawlty Towers, for example, was videotaped in PAL on two-inch Quadruplex videotape; it's more logical to describe this as PAL than 576i, as it was a purely analog recording, though a combination of both, such as PAL (576i) might be acceptable, though it still omits frame rate, which differs between NTSC and PAL/SECAM, and is a matter of choice in HDTV. The use of the term SDTV should be avoided, as there are two common, incompatible SDTV formats in present use (NTSC and PAL/SECAM) and there have been other formats, such as the British 405-line system and the French 819-line.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 08:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added an optional language field. I find it strange that for so long this had country, but no language field, and the film one, had language, but no country field. - ^Рэд_хот 14:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool . thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 14:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose that we add a field for linking to the show's page at TV Guide. The format would be the same as for IMDB and tv.com. They have a page for every show I can think of and the information looks very complete. SnappingTurtle 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a 4th link :\? Can it not go in an external links section? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're anywhere near the point where there are too many external link fields. Actually, we could accomodate several more, but they just needed to be more concisely listed. The current style has them in bold with a fill empty line between each. I'd like to suggest that we tighten up the list and unbold it, but allow for several more TV sites. SnappingTurtle 19:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three is already too much. Wikipedia isn't a TV Guide nor a link repository. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A TV Guide link would be at least as useful as the existing imdb and tv.com links. I believe many people prefer TV Guide, which is why I'd rather add it, along with JumpTheShark, and any other site that lists tvshows and offer discussions about them. On the other hand, as others have stated, perhaps this isn't the place for the entire list of external links, in which case the two non-official links should be removed. One of these two things should happen, but status quo doesn't seem right. – Peuclid 15:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think any argument against TV Guide would also apply to IMDB and TV.Com. They all have good information and either they should all be added or all taken out. tomkincaid 15:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being serious :-\? Why would we add a link for every website, lets get some common sense here. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point (which as I read it wasn't very clear) is that it is entirely subjective to choose which site is the "definitive" source of information about all shows. The official link makes perfect sense since that's clearly the right link for a given show. The choice of tv.com versus tvguide.com versus any other site on the web would be biased regardless of which site is shown. I'd personally rather see tvguide.com there than tv.com, but that's just as subjective as the person that chose tv.com. So, I'd argue that the tv.com link shouldn't be there unless one is willing to argue (as I tried above in jest) that they all should be there.Peuclid 18:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some TV shows credit both a Producer and an Executive Producer. Shouldn't there also be a regular "producer" optional variable on this template? Dl2000 23:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs)

What does everyone think about having a 'List of episodes' link in the infobox? I noticed on some that they link the number of episodes to the list of episodes, ie num_episodes = [[List of My Name Is Earl episodes|27]]. Is that what should be done, or should there be a place just for the list of episodes? Joltman 11:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one responded yet, but I was playing around with it a little. Here's what I came up with as a demo in my user space (I only put a little info in so it wouldn't show up too big here):

I made a list_episodes variable which is optional. What does everyone think? Joltman 18:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there, or could we implement, a SOP for using this implementation as a standard? I realize it's a new option, and a lot of articles out there aren't using simply because they haven't been updated, but could the usage of this be implemented into the WikiProject Television SOP? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. SOP? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stardard Operating Procedure. Sorry, I just mean a standardized way of doing things. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone help me with the Pilot (Part 1) (Lois and Clark episode) Television Infobox. I've tried but it wont show all the information I've put. Thank you. Think outside the box 18:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the wrong infobox (-: (see Template:Infobox Television episode.) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I've got it working now. Thanks! Think outside the box 18:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some shows have head writers, such as Damon Lindelof for "Lost." Should we make a spce on the template for this? --theDemonHog 03:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been eight days. Does anyone want to reply? --theDemonHog 23:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not enough series with head/chief writers to make a new infobox parameter useful. Also, if a series has had numerous head writers that would clutter the infobox (see the Writers, Directors? comment earlier on this talk page). Also, an enduring chief writer may also be a series developer or creator. For example, Lindelof is already in the Lost infobox as a series creator. But he should at least be credited as head writer within the article text. Dl2000 14:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some programs, like Doctor Who, have multiple IMDb pages. (Doctor Who (1963–1989) at IMDb, Doctor Who (1996) at IMDb, Doctor Who (2005–?) at IMDb). Is there a way to create multiple IMDb links in the infobox? If there isn't, could there be? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this was the best place i could think to post this but essentially I'm wondering if we should standardise the type of image used for the infobox to the shows official title card when ever possible. For example Entourage and Jericho are perfect examples of what the standard should be while Boy Meets World and Lost are examples of what should not be used. My reasoning for this is the title card is much more descriptive and recognisable than a random screen shot. Additionally it would somewhat standardize the image size used. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  18:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, i need to get around to changing the Lost image soemtime (-: thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and replaced the images for Lost and Heroes. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  20:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, woah, calm down. It hasn't even been two days yet, you should wait at least 10 days before reaching a consensus. Born Acorn 20:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Meets World is an excellent example of what should not be used, because it is just a random screenshot. However, Lost is a good example of what can be displayed. It is a beautiful collage of the main cast released by the network. A new viewer to Lost will think that it is a nice picture of the cast, whereas they would think a title card is redundant because the name of the television show is given in the article name. So I think that it is depends on the television show to use sceenshot of title card or promotional poster (case-by-case basis). --theDemonHog 03:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does everyone think about adding previous and next shows to the infobox? This would be for something like the Star Trek series, where Deep Space Nine would have The Next Generation as the previous show and Voyager as the next. This is similar to the way the film and album infoboxes work. Here's an example:

Any opinions?Joltman 12:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. --theDemonHog 06:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's probably because there are (too many) exceptions, but any reason why this infobox not named "Television series"...?  ("Television" alone seems a little vague...)  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller names are better until it becomes a problem. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller names also more ambiguous and/or less helpful, especially to those not regularly editing code. Regards, David (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Just been reminded that there's {{Infobox Television episode}}, so {{Infobox Television series}} would seem logical...?  David (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It had been bothering me for sometime that the number of episodes was floating a few px below where it should be.. I couldn't see what was up.. it turns out there was a rogue line break, haha! Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 10:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's confusing to have the infobox say "Genre" but you have to put the information under the header "Format" when you go to edit the box. I don't want to mess anything up so I won't do it myself, but I highly recommend that the coding be changed to the word "genre" too. 23skidoo 00:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, format or genre will now both work when called. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I'm being a bold newbie to this area. I noticed that a couple of shows didn't have infoboxes, or didn't have them fully filled out, so I added them. That led me to have to research what I should put into some of these fields, which in turn led me to record my observations back into the documentation and update the example to match observed common style.

It occurs to me that consistency could be aided by using strongly stylized values, with the template turning them into common presentations. (imdb_id and tv_com_id are good examples of what I mean.)

For instance:

I've only got a very little bit of experience with MediaWiki templates, so I don't know how practical those all are, but most of them seem possible. Thoughts?

Jordan Brown 03:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that if a particular code style is desired for a particular value, the documentation should show the <nowiki> code rather than the as-formatted code, to make it easy to copy-and-paste into your article. language and first_aired show examples of this. I already did this to preceded_by; it seems like it's also appropriate in camera, picture_format, and audio_format. audio_format especially draws my attention, since it seems to want "[[Monaural]] sound" but "[[Surround sound]]". (I didn't do it, because picture_format looked like it would just get gross.)

Note that my standardization comments above might reduce the need for code examples.

Thoughts?

Jordan Brown 03:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like the section header says. Telenovela appears to fill the same ecological niche as this template. Thoughts? I suggest discussing it over on Template talk:Telenovela. Jordan Brown 08:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Infoboxes on articles covering multiple media I've proposed reimplementing this template on top of a modular framework based on the one used in WP:ANIME, and have done some experiments. The intent would be to have a way to support articles that need to have infoboxes covering several "releases" - The Addams Family and Dragnet (series) come immediately to mind. One eventual goal of such a restructuring would be commonality with the anime template set, Template:Infobox Film, Template:Infobox Radio Show, and probably others.

Comments would be appreciated.

Jordan Brown 08:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide an example please? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox animanga}}

He means like that. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, just found an example. My opinion is this: That is way to excessively long, remember an infobox isn't limited to one transclusion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. I dislike the anime box, though I will admit its usefulness in regards to its subject. I prefer the divided setup we have now. The anime/manga series tend to be more closely related than regular television. The current divided setup is more appropriate for mediums that don't often intertwine. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]